RNSystematic ReviewRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2024

Self-care concept for people with elimination ostomy: a scoping review.

Cristiane Rabelo Lisboa, Josimare Aparecida Otoni Spira, Eline Lima Borges

PMID 39761323

WHAT IT FOUND

Self-care for people with elimination ostomies was defined inconsistently across eight studies, often limited to stoma procedures.

Assessment tools differed. Thirteen facilitators and six barriers were identified, mostly linked to professional and institutional care.

Key findings

01The final sample was eight articles; five presented a self-care concept, and four restricted it to procedural actions directed at the ostomy.

02Self-care was assessed using different terms and tools, including capacity, index and level, and OSCI, CAESPO, the Bondy Independence Scale and a numerical scale.

03Nineteen factors influencing self-care adoption were identified: thirteen facilitators and six hindrances, with most hindrances related to professional actions and institutional process.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The review did not assess the methodological quality of included studies. Only eight articles were included after selection. Searches were limited to English, Portuguese and Spanish, four databases, and publications from 2018 to 2023. Some included studies did not report the instrument used for self-care classification. Concepts and assessment terms varied across studies, so no single standard can be taken from this review. The included studies used different designs and settings, including hospital and out-of-hospital care.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that a standard self-care assessment for people with elimination ostomies exists or that these factors prove a specific nursing intervention improves outcomes. The review found inconsistent concepts, tools and factors, and it did not assess study quality or test effectiveness.

Read it on PubMed →